8 ms·

> When Apple first announced the limitations to cross-website tracking in June, the company said the changes are meant to improve trust with users, explaining t

> When Apple first announced the limitations to cross-website tracking in June, the company said the changes are meant to improve trust with users, explaining that “users feel that trust is broken when they are being tracked and privacy-sensitive data about their web activity is acquired for purposes that they never agreed to.” This! I switched from Windows+Android to the Apple ecosystem in 2015. Because I love so many things about Apple products. But this alone (Apple taking measures to protect its customers' privacy concerns) is a huge huuuge selling point and a competitive advantage for them.

QAPereo 9y ago
I've been PC since DOS, and I've switched too. Who the hell wants to be treated like a cross between a product to be monetized, and an enemy to be spied on?!
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- tim333 9y ago
  I have to say I was a little put off by the feeling with Windows 10 that rather than my computer being a machine that follows my instructions, it had become one that Microsoft controls over the internet and maybe does what I ask it if that doesn't annoy Microsoft. I downgraded that one back to 7 and mostly use OSX.
  - CodeWriter23 9y ago
    Going back to Windows 7 on my Windows drive I only used for Steam games that don't have a Mac version. Fuck Microsoft with their deadline for a "free" upgrade turned date rape and switch.
mikemikemike 9y ago
Privacy is important, but breaking the functionality of cookies is the wrong way to address it. Not all cookies are used for tracking. Be prepared to start losing your settings in web apps or being logged out after 24 hours if you use Safari. What's more, the claim that Apple is doing this for the sake of user trust is a lie. The real reason they're breaking the functionality of cookies is the same reason they refuse to implement progressive web apps, and the same reason they've become the slowest browser to adopt new standards, and the same reason you see "Safari is the new IE" all over the place. They're deliberately trying to hold back web technology so that people will be forced to create and use native apps instead. They're desperately trying to cling to the annual developer license fees and app commissions. I say this as a die-hard MacBook user. I prefer Apple to Microsoft, but I hope Google wins in the web-vs-native holy war.
- charonn0 9y ago
  As I understand it, this doesn't affect cookies set by the page/domain the user is actually visiting, and it isn't blindly deleting all cookies after 24 hours.
- throwaway2048 9y ago
  Third party cookies have very few non-tracking legitimate uses, I block them and nothing I actually want has been broken.
- mikestew 9y ago
  Privacy is important, but breaking the functionality of cookies is the wrong way to address it. Apple wasn’t the one that broke the “functionality” of cookies. Though I’ll allow that one could think that third-party tracking cookies were part of the original intent. Be prepared to start losing your settings in web apps or being logged out after 24 hours if you use Safari. Be prepared to start reading articles on how this actually works before sharpening the pitchfork. I’ll give you a hint: none of what you describe will come to pass.
- urda 9y ago
  ... what the hell did I just read. Let me correct the record so those that end up here don't actually buy into this. > Not all cookies are used for tracking. No, but third-party cookies are basically used for tracking. A legitimate site does not depend on a third-party cookie to handle features or login. At all, full stop no ifs, ands, or buts. > Be prepared to start losing your settings in web apps or being logged out after 24 hours if you use Safari. Again, not going to happen because those are not associated with third-party cookies. > They're deliberately trying to hold back web technology so that people will be forced to create and use native apps instead. God no, or there would be no icloud.com, online shopping app, or their other web offerings. There is no conspiracy or holding back, this is purely to protect the user. > I say this as a die-hard MacBook user. Then you should be prepared with more research and have your homework done ahead of time on this matter. This is all nonsense and just false.
  - bochoh 9y ago
khana 9y ago
Quite simply YES!
zeep 9y ago
If they really wanted to protect the privacy of it's customers, FaceID would be really different... I think that they just don't want 3rd parties selling your information.
- nicky0 9y ago
  How so? FaceID is local to the phone.
msla 9y ago
I wonder if Apple is protecting its customers from everyone except Apple. I really can't trust any closed-source OS, and very few closed-source applications.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- tradersam 9y ago
  A lot of macOS is open source. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15251891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15251891 https://developer.apple.com/opensource/ https://developer.apple.com/opensource/
  - msla 9y ago
    Unless I can build and install a completely custom version, it isn't open enough to be safe.
    - astrodust 9y ago
      Can't trust the OS without all the code. Can't trust the code if you can't trust the compiler. Can't trust the compiler if you can't trust the CPU. Can't trust the CPU if you can't trust the microcode. Can't trust the microcode unless you've visually inspected the die. You can't win. Make compromises that are reasonable.
      - oliwarner 9y ago
        > Make compromises that are reasonable. When it's so easy to use a community-vetted Linux distribution, I think "reasonable" gets shunted down a layer. It's not all or nothing. Every reasonable step counts.
        abiox 9y ago
        > community-vetted i wonder if this sort of confidence makes you less-safe. something like this should've prevented heartbleed, in theory, right?
appleplz 9y ago
This is nothing but a feel good PR spin on a replay of their not supporting Flash on the iPhone-- they want to force everyone into their evolving advertising ecosystem. Apple could care less about the privacy of its users. https://www.cultofmac.com/230358/everything-you-need-to-know-about-apple-and-prism/amp/ https://www.cultofmac.com/230358/everything-you-need-to-know...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
NicoJuicy 9y ago
So how would websites earn money? Is everyone going to pay 3$ / month every website? Apple should have fixed that first, but is now blocking everyone because their own iAd failed. I think a lot is going to blow up, eg. Apple users requiring membership for websites + a subscription. What if those companies suddenly require an email to read more content, then their backend syncs all the required data. ( yes, we will submit a fake email, but a lot of people won't) Also, i see >1/2 of the frontpage from these "ad supported companies" that "everyone" hates, i don't want more paywalled articles appearing here... I can understand blocking the ever cookie. But this is probably a bridge too far, i don't want to see more paywalled articles on HN. And yeah, this will not be a popular opinion here... I'd appreciate responding with arguments instead of down voting :) Edit: Failed, downvoting begins as expected
- hmmiwonder 9y ago
  Correct. By adding sufficient value that customers will pay (perhaps with the applepay integration). Or by adding sufficient value that a customer switches browsers.
- ben_jones 9y ago
  Websites don't inherently deserve to earn money. They have to earn it.
- ashark 9y ago
  > So how would websites earn money? There's so much good content that I just don't care if the ad-supported stuff dies. In its absence, free community-driven sites will have a reason to exist and paid options will stand a fighting chance. Maybe magazine-style non-tracking ads will be viable again. Anything that doesn't make the transition to one of those models doesn't matter to me—I don't have anywhere near enough time for it all as it is.
  - NicoJuicy 9y ago
    If i currently look at the frontpage of HN i see bloomberg, tomshardware, nytimes, nextplatform, theconversation, washingtonpost, ... That's only the 10 first articles. All of these are ad-supported for the content. I think most people don't have a correct interpretation of what it is to have money to pay journalists for articles and then get paid for content through ads, because 99,9% of the people won't pay a subscription. Fyi, the public content is paid by ads right now and most of them have a digital-subscription on the side.
ac29 9y ago
Firefox (w/ ublock origin), Firefox Focus, and the various on device VPN-style ad/tracking blockers (I use DNS66, there are others) make Android much improved over system defaults if you are concerned about tracking or ads. None of them require root or other non-stock-OS modifications.

QAPereo 9y ago

I've been PC since DOS, and I've switched too. Who the hell wants to be treated like a cross between a product to be monetized, and an enemy to be spied on?!

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tim333 9y ago
I have to say I was a little put off by the feeling with Windows 10 that rather than my computer being a machine that follows my instructions, it had become one that Microsoft controls over the internet and maybe does what I ask it if that doesn't annoy Microsoft. I downgraded that one back to 7 and mostly use OSX.
- CodeWriter23 9y ago
  Going back to Windows 7 on my Windows drive I only used for Steam games that don't have a Mac version. Fuck Microsoft with their deadline for a "free" upgrade turned date rape and switch.

mikemikemike 9y ago

Privacy is important, but breaking the functionality of cookies is the wrong way to address it. Not all cookies are used for tracking. Be prepared to start losing your settings in web apps or being logged out after 24 hours if you use Safari. What's more, the claim that Apple is doing this for the sake of user trust is a lie. The real reason they're breaking the functionality of cookies is the same reason they refuse to implement progressive web apps, and the same reason they've become the slowest browser to adopt new standards, and the same reason you see "Safari is the new IE" all over the place. They're deliberately trying to hold back web technology so that people will be forced to create and use native apps instead. They're desperately trying to cling to the annual developer license fees and app commissions. I say this as a die-hard MacBook user. I prefer Apple to Microsoft, but I hope Google wins in the web-vs-native holy war.

charonn0 9y ago
As I understand it, this doesn't affect cookies set by the page/domain the user is actually visiting, and it isn't blindly deleting all cookies after 24 hours.
throwaway2048 9y ago
Third party cookies have very few non-tracking legitimate uses, I block them and nothing I actually want has been broken.
mikestew 9y ago
Privacy is important, but breaking the functionality of cookies is the wrong way to address it. Apple wasn’t the one that broke the “functionality” of cookies. Though I’ll allow that one could think that third-party tracking cookies were part of the original intent. Be prepared to start losing your settings in web apps or being logged out after 24 hours if you use Safari. Be prepared to start reading articles on how this actually works before sharpening the pitchfork. I’ll give you a hint: none of what you describe will come to pass.
urda 9y ago
... what the hell did I just read. Let me correct the record so those that end up here don't actually buy into this. > Not all cookies are used for tracking. No, but third-party cookies are basically used for tracking. A legitimate site does not depend on a third-party cookie to handle features or login. At all, full stop no ifs, ands, or buts. > Be prepared to start losing your settings in web apps or being logged out after 24 hours if you use Safari. Again, not going to happen because those are not associated with third-party cookies. > They're deliberately trying to hold back web technology so that people will be forced to create and use native apps instead. God no, or there would be no icloud.com, online shopping app, or their other web offerings. There is no conspiracy or holding back, this is purely to protect the user. > I say this as a die-hard MacBook user. Then you should be prepared with more research and have your homework done ahead of time on this matter. This is all nonsense and just false.
- bochoh 9y ago

khana 9y ago

Quite simply YES!

zeep 9y ago

If they really wanted to protect the privacy of it's customers, FaceID would be really different... I think that they just don't want 3rd parties selling your information.

nicky0 9y ago
How so? FaceID is local to the phone.

msla 9y ago

I wonder if Apple is protecting its customers from everyone except Apple. I really can't trust any closed-source OS, and very few closed-source applications.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tradersam 9y ago
A lot of macOS is open source. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15251891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15251891 https://developer.apple.com/opensource/ https://developer.apple.com/opensource/
- msla 9y ago
  Unless I can build and install a completely custom version, it isn't open enough to be safe.
  - astrodust 9y ago
    Can't trust the OS without all the code. Can't trust the code if you can't trust the compiler. Can't trust the compiler if you can't trust the CPU. Can't trust the CPU if you can't trust the microcode. Can't trust the microcode unless you've visually inspected the die. You can't win. Make compromises that are reasonable.
    - oliwarner 9y ago
      > Make compromises that are reasonable. When it's so easy to use a community-vetted Linux distribution, I think "reasonable" gets shunted down a layer. It's not all or nothing. Every reasonable step counts.
      - abiox 9y ago
        > community-vetted i wonder if this sort of confidence makes you less-safe. something like this should've prevented heartbleed, in theory, right?

appleplz 9y ago

This is nothing but a feel good PR spin on a replay of their not supporting Flash on the iPhone-- they want to force everyone into their evolving advertising ecosystem. Apple could care less about the privacy of its users. https://www.cultofmac.com/230358/everything-you-need-to-know-about-apple-and-prism/amp/ https://www.cultofmac.com/230358/everything-you-need-to-know...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

NicoJuicy 9y ago

So how would websites earn money? Is everyone going to pay 3$ / month every website? Apple should have fixed that first, but is now blocking everyone because their own iAd failed. I think a lot is going to blow up, eg. Apple users requiring membership for websites + a subscription. What if those companies suddenly require an email to read more content, then their backend syncs all the required data. ( yes, we will submit a fake email, but a lot of people won't) Also, i see >1/2 of the frontpage from these "ad supported companies" that "everyone" hates, i don't want more paywalled articles appearing here... I can understand blocking the ever cookie. But this is probably a bridge too far, i don't want to see more paywalled articles on HN. And yeah, this will not be a popular opinion here... I'd appreciate responding with arguments instead of down voting :) Edit: Failed, downvoting begins as expected

hmmiwonder 9y ago
Correct. By adding sufficient value that customers will pay (perhaps with the applepay integration). Or by adding sufficient value that a customer switches browsers.
ben_jones 9y ago
Websites don't inherently deserve to earn money. They have to earn it.
ashark 9y ago
> So how would websites earn money? There's so much good content that I just don't care if the ad-supported stuff dies. In its absence, free community-driven sites will have a reason to exist and paid options will stand a fighting chance. Maybe magazine-style non-tracking ads will be viable again. Anything that doesn't make the transition to one of those models doesn't matter to me—I don't have anywhere near enough time for it all as it is.
- NicoJuicy 9y ago
  If i currently look at the frontpage of HN i see bloomberg, tomshardware, nytimes, nextplatform, theconversation, washingtonpost, ... That's only the 10 first articles. All of these are ad-supported for the content. I think most people don't have a correct interpretation of what it is to have money to pay journalists for articles and then get paid for content through ads, because 99,9% of the people won't pay a subscription. Fyi, the public content is paid by ads right now and most of them have a digital-subscription on the side.

ac29 9y ago

Firefox (w/ ublock origin), Firefox Focus, and the various on device VPN-style ad/tracking blockers (I use DNS66, there are others) make Android much improved over system defaults if you are concerned about tracking or ads. None of them require root or other non-stock-OS modifications.